ArticleRadiation oncology (London, England)2025
Sequential or simultaneous-integrated boost in early-stage breast cancer patients: trade-offs between skin toxicity and risk of compromised coverage.
Article in Radiation oncology (London, England), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Association between radiation volume and breast density for skin toxicity and breast edema after radiotherapy in breast conserving therapy of breast cancer.Radiation oncology (London, England) · 2026Article
- Anatomy-Based Multivariate Model Predicts Boost Coverage Robustness of Dose-Escalated Simultaneous Integrated Boost Radiotherapy in Early Breast Cancer.Technology in cancer research & treatmentArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo determine the dosimetric effects of set-up errors on boost coverage, and compares skin toxicity of sequential and simultaneous boost techniques for left-sided breast cancer. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis retrospective study included 23 early-stage breast cancer cases. Single isocenter HFWBI-SIB(s-SIB), single isocenter HFWBI-SB(s-SB) and dual isocenter HFWBI-SB(d-SB) were planing. Rotations of 0.5°, 1°, and 2° coupled with translationals of 0.5 mm, 1.0 mm, and 2.0 mm were applied along three orthogonal axes. The dose to 95% of the PTV (D95) and the volume covered by 95% of the prescribed dose (V95) were evaluated using GEE univariate analysis to determine how PTV coverage was related to 1/CI
resultsThe s-SIB had optimal target coverage and lower high-dose volume, but it increased the risk of compromised coverage to tumor bed. For the s-SB technique, V95 exceeded 95% under all setup errors. At 2.0° coupled with 2.0 mm, s-SIB and d-SB exhibited V95 values below 95% in 34.8% and 8.7% of cases, respectively. At other setup errors, both s-SIB and d-SB demonstrated V95 values greater than 95%. Notably, high-dose regions such as V105%, V107%, and V110% within the PTVbreast across the three techniques displayed a significant correlation with Ratio_V.
conclusionSimultaneous-integrated boost for early-stage breast cancer can reduce skin toxicity compared to sequential techniques but with the risk of compromising tumor bed coverage.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.